Common-Sense Politics said:
Elias Greyjoy said:
As an offshoot to Dre and Skizzy's answers to the most recent question, I'd like to see their thoughts on the following as a follow-up: do you think that the success of the GAP has created a somewhat complacent outlook vis-a-vis foreign policy? By that, I mean this - I think most people agree, at this point, that altogether scraping the GAP isn't an option. Knowing that, is that the focal point now rather than a new foreign policy?
That's a great question, Elias. I don't think the GAP should be the primary focus of our foreign policy. It was never meant to be and anyone who asserts that it should be isn't someone we want calling shots. I'm not suggesting though that the candidates should be putting forth for examination a "new" foreign policy but rather new ideas to accomplish the existing goals.
Let's create a fraction -- the numerator will be the number of hours spent next term on GAP, and the denominator will be the number of hours spent on all FA-related projects (including GAP).
What will that fraction be? What should it be?
I'll be shocked if it's less than two-thirds, unless the next President changes course and scraps the GAP. It's a labor-intensive project.
That doesn't necessarily mean the GAP will be (or should be) our strategic focus.